[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 68 (Monday, April 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15464-15465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8511]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-804]


Sparklers From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners, the Elkton 
Sparkler Company and the Diamond Sparkler Company, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on sparklers from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC). This review covers one manufacturer, Guangxi Native Produce 
Import and Export Corporation, Beihai Fireworks and Firecrackers Branch 
(Guangxi), of the subject merchandise, and the review period June 1, 
1994, through May 31, 1995.
    Guangxi failed to submit a response to our questionnaire. As a 
result, we have preliminarily determined to use facts otherwise 
available for cash deposit and appraisement purposes.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.
    Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Blaskovich or Zev Primor, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5831/4114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 6, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 29821) a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative 
Review'' of the antidumping duty order on sparklers from the PRC. On 
June 20, 1995, the petitioners requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.22 (a), that we conduct an administrative review of Guangxi for the 
period June 1, 1994, through May 31, 1995. We initiated the review on 
August 16, 1995 (60 FR 42501).
    The initiation notice indicated that the review would cover Guangxi 
and conditionally all other exporters of this merchandise. The 
Department is now conducting this review in accordance with section 751 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this administrative review are sparklers 
from the PRC. Sparklers are fireworks, each comprising a cut-to-length 
wire, one end of which is coated with a chemical mix that emits bright 
sparks while burning. Sparklers are currently classifiable under 
subheading 3604.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS). The HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The 
written description remains dispositive as to the scope of this 
proceeding.
    The review covers Guangxi and the period June 1, 1994, through May 
31, 1995.

Use of Facts Available

    On September 7, 1995, we mailed Guangxi and the Chinese Chamber of 
Commerce, Guangxi Province (CCC), a questionnaire seeking information 
necessary to conduct a review of any shipments of the subject 
merchandise made to the United States during the period of review 
(POR). While Guangxi was required to respond to this questionnaire, we 
requested that the CCC forward the questionnaire to any PRC 
manufacturers which, according to our criteria, should be entitled to 
receive a separate antidumping duty rate. In addition, a short 
questionnaire was sent to the CCC (which forwarded our questionnaires 
to the China Chamber of Commerce of Importers & Exporters of Food 
Stuffs, Native Produce & Animal by Products), the Embassy of the 
People's Republic of China, and the (Chinese) Ministry of Foreign Trade 
and Economic Cooperation. This questionnaire sought to ascertain 
whether Guangxi or any other PRC manufacturer shall be entitled to a 
separate rate by demonstrating both de jure and de facto absence of 
central government control with respect to exports.
    The questionnaires were due on November 7, 1995. We did not receive 
a response from any party. As a result of Guangxi failing to submit a 
response to our questionnaire, the necessary information to issue 
preliminary results for the POR is not on the record. The Department 
finds that, in not responding to the questionnaire, Guangxi failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information from the Department. Therefore, we must base 
our preliminary results on facts otherwise available (section 776(a) of 
the Tariff Act).
    Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a 
respondent in an administrative review on the facts available because 
that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) authorizes the 
Department to use an inference adverse to the interests of that 
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) also 
authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information 
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous 
administrative review, or other information placed on the record. 
Accordingly, in this case, we preliminarily assign to Guangxi a margin 
of 93.54 percent, the margin calculated in the remand of the less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) final determination (See Sparklers from the People's 
Republic of China: Adverse Decision and Amendment to Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Order in Accordance with Decision Upon Remand, 58 FR 40624 (July 29, 
1993)).
    Because information from prior segments of the proceeding 
constitutes secondary information, section 776(c) provides that the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary 
information from independent sources reasonable at its disposal. The 
Statement of

[[Page 15465]]
Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
it uses has probative value.
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if 
the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant.
    Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see e.g., Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, (60 FR 49567) where the Department disregarded 
the highest margin in that case as adverse BIA because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an unusually high margin). In this case, we have used the highest 
rate from any prior segment of the proceeding, 93.54 percent rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin 
of 93.54 percent exists for Guangxi for the period June 1, 1994, 
through May 31, 1995.
    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Case briefs and/or 
written comments from interested parties may be submitted not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and 
rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs and comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date 
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after 
the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. The 
Department will publish the final results of the administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written comments or at a hearing. Upon completion of this 
administrative review, the Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of administrative review for all 
shipments of sparklers from the PRC, entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit 
rate for Guangxi will be the PRC country-wide rate of 93.54 percent; 
(2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies that received 
separate rates not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to 
be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) 
the cash deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter will be the rate 
established for that firm; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
PRC manufacturers or exporters will be 93.54 percent. These 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: March 28, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
[FR Doc. 96-8511 Filed 4-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P